Butner, N.C. — Doctors have divided views on a proposed biodefense lab in Butner.
Some say it could lead to the biggest public health disaster in the state's history, while others say it will help fight diseases that do not yet have a cure.
The Umstead Research Farm area is one site among five where Congress is considering placing the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility. Scientists would study diseases like nipah and hendra.
Dr. Joseph Melamed, with Wake Radiology, said the stakes are too high to place a scientific facility dealing with potent viruses in such an populated area. Thirty-three other doctors have signed a petition against the biodefense lab that Melamed started circulating two weeks ago.
"If any of these diseases were to escape this facility, it could lead to a devastating public health disaster," Melamed said.
"These facilities do not belong in high population areas," he added. "They certainly don't belong in a watershed for a 50-mile radius with a population of 2 million people."
The biodefense lab would be more like the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta, where scientists study potentially deadly diseases in a secure setting, than a high risk to spread disease, Dr. Barrett Slenning, a veterinarian at North Carolina State University, argued.
The lab would be run through the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
Although the lab would be near the watershed for Falls Lake, Raleigh's primary water source, Slenning said there would be no danger of diseases getting out of the facility.
"These facilities are designed knowing that people will make mistakes," Slenning said. "If they make a mistake, it gets caught by the first backup. If they make another mistake, it gets caught by the second backup."
Melamed contended that putting the facility handling Ebola and anthrax viruses in Butner would be plain reckless.
"If you contract any of these diseases, there's no need for you to go to the hospital, to Duke or UNC or any of the tertiary care medical centers," Melamed said. "There's nothing we can do for you."
Slenning argued that the possible benefits of the biodefense lab outweigh any hypothetical risks.
"Having the facilities, the diagnostics near us is what will make or break the difference if we ever get any kind of outbreak," Slenning said.
Congress was also considering sites in Texas, Kansas, Mississippi and Georgia and was not expected to make a decision until fall 2008.



![[SLIDESHOW]](http://wwwcache.wral.com/asset/entertainment/out_and_about/2012/02/04/10712136/pics_agunn53833-100x75.jpg)
![[SLIDESHOW]](http://wwwcache.wral.com/asset/lifestyles/travel/2012/02/09/10710709/10710709-1328829176-100x75.jpg)
![[SLIDESHOW]](http://wwwcache.wralsportsfan.com/asset/basketball/2012/02/09/10705803/10705803-1328766083-100x75.jpg)
![[SLIDESHOW]](http://wwwcache.wral.com/asset/lifestyles/travel/2012/02/08/10704761/10704761-1328743348-100x75.jpg)







WRAL.com welcomes your comments on this story. All comments are moderated prior to publication based on our posting guidelines. Please review them prior to posting and if your message is not approved.
This story is closed for comments.
December 26, 2007 4:44 p.m.
December 26, 2007 12:45 p.m.
I view this so-called "story" as mostly fear-mongering sensationlism designed to take advantage of the public's general lack of scientific knowledge. Sensationalism=ratings and ratings=$$$.
As Steve points out, the pathogens that would be studied are either highly treatable or highly self-limiting.
One thing that this report is leaving out in regards to Ebola is this: "The Ebola virus is transmitted by direct contact with the blood, secretions, organs or other bodily fluids of infected persons." That's according to the WHO, a quite reputable source. So, again, please explain concerns about the water supply. It cannot be transmitted by air, does not survice in water and in fact requires intimate contact where bodily fluids are exchanged.
December 26, 2007 11:25 a.m.
Sure that story is bigtime fiction but let's be honest here. Even with all of these supposed "safety precautions", there would still be the *potential* for something very bad to happen at a facility such as this. And that being the case, why wouldn't the government want to build this place out in Nevada, or someplace as remote?
And the fact that some people could possibly find employment at such a facility doesn't do anything for me either. A lot of people *could* find employment at a landfill.. doesn't mean I should want one in my backyard.
December 26, 2007 11:03 a.m.
December 26, 2007 9:36 a.m.